Commons:Návrhy na kvalitní obrázky

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 41% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Přeskočit k návrhům
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

Zde najdete obrázky navržené na zařazení mezi Kvalitní obrázky. Prosím povšimněte si, že jde o něco jiného než Nejlepší obrázky. Pokud chcete ke svým fotografiím nějaké obsáhlejší komentáře a kritiku, je vhodnějším místem stránka Photography critiques.

Cíl

Cílem projektu kvalitní obrázky je podpořit ty, kteří jsou skutečným základem Wikimedia Commons - jednotlivé uživatele, kteří přispívají k rozšíření Commons svými jedinečnými příspěvky. Zatímco Nejlepší obrázky shromažďují to absolutně nejlepší a nejpůsobivější z veškerého obsahu Commons, cílem Kvalitních obrázků je podpořit uživatele v tvorbě obrázků s definovanou úrovní kvality, a identifikovat obrázky ji splňující.
Kvalitní obrázky nejsou soutěž.

Pravidla

Všechny navržené obrázky musí být vytvořené přímo uživateli Commons.

Pro navrhovatele

Níže popsaná jsou přibližná kritéria pro Kvalitní obrázky, podrobný popis je v Quality images guidelines (zatím v angličtině).

Požadavky na stránku s popisem
  1. Autorská práva. Kvalitní obrázky musí být na Commons nahrané přímo držitelem autorským práv s přijatelnou licencí.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. Kvalitní obrázky nesmí obsahovat reklamu či podpis autora v samotném obrázku. Informace o autorovi a autorských právech by se měly nacházet na stránce s popisem, a mohou být v metadatech souboru (EXIF a pod. ), ale neměly by narušovat vlastní obrázek.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technické požadavky

Přesnější specifikace je v textu Commons:Quality images guidelines.

Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Hodnocení obrázků

Kterýkoli přihlášený uživatel může vyhodnotit nominace.
Při hodnocení se užijí stejná kritéria jako při nominace,

Jak provést hodnocení

How to update the status

Důkladně si prohlédněte obrázek. Otevřete si jej v plném rozlišení a zkontrolujte, jestli splňuje jednotlivá kritéria pro kvalitní obrázky

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria splňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru
Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

to

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Promotion| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | Čím je obrázek obzvlášť dobrý. --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Promotion a přidejte popis, případně velmi krátké zdůvodnění.

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria nesplňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru
Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

to

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Decline| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | velmi krátké zdůvodnění --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Decline přidejte podpis, případně kritéria na kvalitní obrázky, která navržený obrázek nesplňuje. (Používejte názvy sekcí z kritérií). Pokud obrázek nesplňuje větší množství požadavků, stačí uvést 2-3 nejvážnější chyby, zmínit "multiple problems". Když zamítáte nominaci, je přínosné na stránce navrhovatele vysvětlit důvody - ale vždy přívětivě, žádné kousavé poznámky.

Prosba: Hodnoťte nejdřív nejstarší nezhodnocené obrázky.


Zhodnocení a

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives srpen 2015 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Contents

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 12:21, 4 srpen 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

August 4, 2015

August 3, 2015

August 2, 2015

August 1, 2015

July 31, 2015

July 30, 2015

July 29, 2015

July 28, 2015

July 27, 2015

July 26, 2015

July 25, 2015

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Containerstapler Kalmar.jpg

Containerstapler Kalmar.jpg

  • Nomination Containerstapler auf einem Verladebahnhof --Dh1970 08:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion This may be photo art, but IMO it's not really useful for Wikipedia because of the rotation. --Tsungam 10:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Commons ist NOT only for Wikipedia, its a free database for all --Ralf Roletschek 12:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Need rotation --Livioandronico2013 13:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Need rotation --Atamari 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition, tilted. -- Smial 11:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Minneapolis–Saint_Paul_International_Airport_February_2015_45.jpg

Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport February 2015 45.jpg

  • Nomination Spirit Airlines Airbus A320 N611NK and American Airlines Airbus A321 N508AY at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport in Hennepin County, Minnesota (United States). --Michael Barera 20:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 20:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    It looks like there is a lot of jpeg artefacts. --Gyrostat 09:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Also it seems to be underexposed. --SkywalkerPL 20:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think that it is underexposed. The lighting may be due to the winter day. -- Spurzem 09:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chroma noise, lots of artifacts. -- Smial 11:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_(OLS)_04_ies.jpg

Wuppertal (OLS) 04 ies.jpg

  • Nomination Wuppertal von Obere Lichtenplatzer Straße aus gesehen By User:Ies --Atamari 10:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice small landscape ... lots of detail for f/5.6 --Daniel Case 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Haze, unsharp, noisy, technically bad (ISO 400 at 1/1600s for landscape?) --SkywalkerPL 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lech_Pisciadu_Sella_Dolomites.jpg

Lech Pisciadu Sella Dolomites.jpg

  • Nomination The lake Pisciadù in the Sella group in the Dolomites, South Tyrol.) --Moroder 06:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Soft detail in some areas, particularly foreground—seems a little overprocessed --Daniel Case 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review but overprocessed is inappropriate because the image was uploaded as it came out of the camera. We could discuss about the softness of foreground, does it bother so much? The picture was taken with a reasonable aperture of f/9. Cheers --Moroder 06:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if not the description - I would never think that the subject of this image is a lake. You photographed a valley with these huge rocks, not the lake itself. Also - at this distance and focal length combination you don't really need to use f/9, you could safely use the sweet spot of your lens. --SkywalkerPL 20:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Papaver oriëntale. Locatie, Tuinen Mien Ruys in Dedemsvaart.jpg

Papaver oriëntale. Locatie, Tuinen Mien Ruys in Dedemsvaart.jpg

  • Nomination Papaver oriëntale. Location, Mien Ruys Gardens Dedemsvaart (Overijssel) in the Netherlands.
    Agnes Monkelbaan 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    The red channel is completely burnt, thus most of the structure of the flower is lost. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 21:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New version. --Agnes Monkelbaan 16:06, 3 August 2015
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 20:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

File:Grayling (Hipparchia semele semele) Greenham.jpg

Grayling (Hipparchia semele semele) Greenham.jpg

  • Nomination Grayling (Hipparchia semele semele), Greenham Common, Berkshire --Charlesjsharp 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Only 1.82 MP. --Crisco 1492 00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, uploaded wrong file. Charlesjsharp 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It's still under the minimum threshhold. I think you overwrote the wrong file. (It's still a decline for me, even with the resolution increase; the OOF leaf is disturbing).Crisco 1492 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
finally correct file. I could have cropped it out, but this is quite a rare butterfly in the UK and I decided to leave as is.Charlesjsharp 11:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but that out of focus leaf is so distracting, that I don't see it as a QI, especially because it's overlapping with a subject. Also seems like ISO is pushed unnecessary high causing loss of details - 100mm@APS-C with 1/800s exposure and ISO 800? Unless you have a really shaky hands you could safely step down to 1/400s with ISO400 what would make a significant difference in the amount of details capture by EOS 70D. --SkywalkerPL 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    I don't mind the oppose at all, but I guess you have zero experience of trying to take a macro shot of the rare grayling butterfly, when it's on a patch of earth between prickly gorse. Try it sometime then lecture me! Charlesjsharp 09:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Grayling_(Hipparchia_semele_semele).jpg

Grayling (Hipparchia semele semele).jpg

  • Nomination Grayling (Hipparchia semele semele), Greenham Common, Berkshire --Charlesjsharp 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Need location category. Below 2 MP threshold. Jkadavoor 06:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Only 499 KB. --Palauenc05 06:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, uploaded wrong file. Where in QI guidelines does it say you need location category please? Charlesjsharp 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Nephila pilipes on Kadavoor.jpg

Nephila pilipes on Kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Nephila pilipes with some flies perched on her. -- Jkadavoor 05:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs brightening and denoising. --Hockei 08:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Tried again; but no progress as brightening will overexpose the subject and web. This is a big spider and flash can't lighten the empty sky around. I'm on a six feet ladder to make me inline with the subject between two trees. ;( Jkadavoor 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think it is doable. I've made a try from your jpeg-file. The noise is a bit problematic. You can give me your email address. Then I'll send you my trial version for comparison. --Hockei 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Mail sent; thanks. Jkadavoor 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    New version with the help of Hockei uploaded. Jkadavoor 02:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I hope anybody else can review it and give a vote. --Hockei 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't care whether this is promoted or declined; but eager to hear some opinions. Hope you never mind. :) Jkadavoor 05:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not a bad try but I prefer the first version as the general quality is a bit deteriorated by the brightening IMO --Christian Ferrer 09:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aggressive de-noising, ugly artefacts (especially around legs). Overall it looks like you got it badly underexposed and I doubt you'll be able to rescue it now to a satisfactory point. As for a lack of details - it was shot at f/16, so diffraction blurred them out, the only way to avoid it would be focus stacking, and that's quite difficult with spider webs on an open air, so I would deem it acceptable, if not all the other problems. SkywalkerPL (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Focus stacking on a ladder? I don't think so. Charlesjsharp 09:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Student from UNY reading short story by Evi Idawati 2015-06-08 02.jpg

Student from UNY reading short story by Evi Idawati 2015-06-08 02.jpg

  • Nomination Student from Yogyakarta State University performing a dramatic reading. Crisco 1492 14:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred, reflection from flashlight --Moroder 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No flash used (check the EXIF data). It is the reflection of stage lighting off the perspiration on her face. --Crisco 1492 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Student from UNY reading short story by Evi Idawati 2015-06-08 01.jpg

Student from UNY reading short story by Evi Idawati 2015-06-08 01.jpg

  • Nomination Student from Yogyakarta State University performing a dramatic reading. Crisco 1492 14:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose reflection from flashlight --Moroder 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No flash used (check the EXIF data). It is the reflection of stage lighting off the perspiration on her face. --Crisco 1492 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_in_Sant'Ignazio_(Rome)_HDR.jpg

Dome in Sant'Ignazio (Rome) HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Dome in Sant'Ignazio (Rome) HDR --Livioandronico2013 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not really fond of this type of images, btw there is also a lot of CA --Moroder 06:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Esagerato...un pochino Clin comunque ✓ Done --Livioandronico2013 11:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ma cos'è tutta quella luce azzurra, poi mi sembra sovraesposta la parte della lanterna...--Moroder 12:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Non credo che sia sovraesposta (è in HDR) comunque fai tu. La luce proviene da una vetrata azzurra vicino,thanks --Livioandronico2013 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, overexposed roof of the lantern (no detail specially on the right) --Moroder 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ask other opinions,thanks --Livioandronico2013 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me.--Hubertl 05:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very difficult light to be managed, but I Agree with Moroder.--Jebulon 16:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me too --Σπάρτακος 22:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Ballon PH-HOS van Nissan op de Jaarlijkse Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 01.jpg

Ballon PH-HOS van Nissan op de Jaarlijkse Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 01.jpg

  • Nomination Balloon PH HOS Nissan on the Hot Air Balloon Festival in Joure province of Friesland in the Netherlands.
    Famberhorst 04:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice picture, but unfortunately out of focus. --Code 05:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: is the balloon not sharp, or just the passenger compartment?
Famberhorst 15:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The balloon IMO. --Code 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not out of focus. It's diffraction. f/11 at 18Mpx APS-C sensor. It could easily be shot at f/5.6 --SkywalkerPL 21:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. -- KTC 23:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Additionally I think it should be a little brighter overall. --Code 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Slightly brighter. Thank you.--Famberhorst 16:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Časový rozvrh (kdy uplyne 15 dní od nominace)

po 27 7. → út 04 8.
út 28 7. → st 05 8.
st 29 7. → čt 06 8.
čt 30 7. → pá 07 8.
pá 31 7. → so 08 8.
so 01 8. → ne 09 8.
ne 02 8. → po 10 8.
po 03 8. → út 11 8.
út 04 8. → st 12 8.